A Third Party Vote is Not Wasted

The best "chance" Constituitonal Conservatism has is within movements like the "Tea Party".......incrmental changes, local action translated into national politics, and sound consititutional principals.

If the Tea Party can get just a few more Senate seats; then that would be a game-changer against the two-party status quo.

Learn from the Marxists; where do you think the concept of "creeping socialism" comes from?

Marxists learned a long time ago that within American; major victories aren't possible....they are happy with incremental changes; and the result has been a 30-year slide of political needle to the left !

The problem is that incrementalism doesn't work. We just go incrementally farther down the path to tyranny. Romney is not going to reverse any trends, he may simply just slow some down. I just hope he slows it down enough for people to be able to see it, and get off this idea that only Democrats or Republicans can get elected.

I am not putting all my hopes on Romney; he is a useful tool. The Tea Party is our best chance. The Tea Party working at the local, state, and national levels. Influencing the races and policies of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party has more electorial clout than any 3rd party right now. And they are a cohesive Consitutionally Conservative bunch of ordinary Americans who the Democrats are frightened of. The Democrats do not fear the Libertarian or other 3rd party because they are electorally insignficant, divided among themselves, and can't influence elections or policy.

Again, Romney is a useful tool; a wet blanket that the Tea Party can use to implement the kind of change that is signficiant.

Well, I hope we get the chance to prove you right. I just don't have any faith in the Tea Party or Romney. I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

The problem is that incrementalism doesn't work. We just go incrementally farther down the path to tyranny. Romney is not going to reverse any trends, he may simply just slow some down. I just hope he slows it down enough for people to be able to see it, and get off this idea that only Democrats or Republicans can get elected. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As Whirlaway stated, incrementalism has worked for the left. We didn't get to be a social welfare state overnight. I don't agree with the 30 year time frame, however. I think the camel's nose under the tent was The New Deal under FDR in the thirties; that makes it closer to 80 years.

It's going to be tough to put the social welfare genie back in the bottle. Trying to get the majority of the people to vote against a redistributive system is going to be very difficult. The majority will always vote for short term self interest. The majority will vote to eat the seed corn.

Our fundamental mistake was allowing FDR to implement programs that were clearly unconstitutional. Once the firewall of the Constitution was breached by the FDR, our demise was only a matter of time.

Stevie, do you not agree that in our Electoral System in choosing the President, that if disgruntled Democrats vote for some 3d party candidate, that President Obama would be at a great disadvantage.

Stevie, do you not agree that in our Electoral System in choosing the President, that if disgruntled Democrats vote for some 3d party candidate, that President Obama would be at a great disadvantage. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Al Gore lost in 2000 because Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party ticket. Nader got only a small percentage of the vote, but it was enough to give Bush the win in Florida.

Ross Perot begat Bill Clinton.

Ross Perot begat Bill Clinton. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Nope, Bush 41 did, "read my lips" did, NAFTA did, leaving Sadam alive and in charge in Iraq did, an arrogant GOP establishment did.

http://www.google.com/search?q=did+p...ient=firefox-a

I voted for Perot, I'm glad I did and would again, Perot was the best candidate, hands down. Anyone who doubts his position on NAFTA needs to do a drive through some industrial parks in Juarez or Nuevo Laredo.

Political parties are in the business of supplying a product: candidates. They are obligated to provide the product I want if they want my business (vote), otherwise, my business goes somewhere else.

Compromising with evil, is evil, voting for the "lessor" evil time after time only leads to the choices sliding more and more into evil.

To paraphrase Lincoln; I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

I too voted for Perot; I actively campgained for him. Although I don't regret the vote, I do regret the outcome - Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton's 8 years in office gave us 9/11, Ginzburg, Breyer, the dot com bust, subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continued liberalism in government. I doubt if a Bush I second term would have been worse. And who knows who would have emerged in 1996.

BTW, Perot had a great message but was a terrible candidate. And his selection for VP backfired. Perot just looked/sounded plain crazy overtime (ironically his campgain song was "crazy"). I learned my 3rd party lesson with Perot.

Yes it did.

Ross Perot's 3rd party candidacy begat Bill Clinton. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I too voted for Perot; I actively campgained for him. Although I don't regret the vote, I do regret the outcome - Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton's 8 years in office gave us 9/11, Ginzburg, Breyer, the dot com bust, subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continued liberalism in government. I doubt if a Bush I second term would have been worse. And who knows who would have emerged in 1996.

BTW, Perot had a great message but was a terrible candidate. And his selection for VP backfired. Perot just looked/sounded plain crazy overtime (ironically his campgain song was "crazy"). I learned my 3rd party lesson with Perot. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It also gave us the republican congress in 94. Without Clinton to oppose we might not have had the spending constraints. Under Bush 2 the republicans acted like democrats.

E]